By Kieran Nicholson, Denver Post Staff Writer
Despite opposing a new state law but forced to comply with it, Denver officials will begin accepting applications for concealed weapons permits later this month.

Denver has battled the mandatory issuance of concealed handgun permits for years, and is now taking on two controversial gun measures, Senate Bills 24 and 25, signed into law in March.

But for now, Denver police will start taking applications on May 19, Mayor Wellington Webb said Wednesday.

Webb said he has directed police "to perform the most rigorous background check on applicants allowed by the new law, and exercise to the fullest extent possible the discretion afforded by the law to deny permits to persons who may be a danger to themselves or others."

Webb fears the new gun laws will make carrying a concealed weapon in Denver, and elsewhere, the norm rather than exception to the rule.

The mayor sharply criticized the legislation, saying "the state has turned the law and common sense on its head."

SB 24 requires county authorities to give gun permits to citizens who are at least 21 years old and pass a criminal background check and handgun training course. It prohibits concealed weapons in elementary and secondary schools. It also gives police chiefs and sheriffs discretion to issue permits to people older than 18 who say they need to carry a gun for self-protection.

SB 25 eliminates local gun laws statewide, while giving local governments the discretion to post signs in buildings or a specific area where guns can't be carried.

Webb said the Colorado Constitution "clearly disfavors" the carrying of concealed weapons. "State-mandated permits allowing handguns to be routinely carried in public will not make for a safer society," he said.

Sen. Jim Dyer, R-Centennial, a co-sponsor of SB 25, said the new law mandates a statewide uniformity for some municipalities that had in effect a "de facto gun ban."

"I think (SB) 25 is a necessary and thoughtful response to some fairly severe and at times out of control local municipal ordinances," Dyer said. "Now we have a uniform and well-understood law on the books that protects law-abiding citizens with the clarity we didn't have before."

Denver officials say that since Denver is a home-rule city, it might leave its local gun regulations on the books and await a constitutional challenge over SB 25. The city also could sue the state.

Denver "will not give up on the fight to preserve its authority to regulate how and where firearms may be carried within the city," Webb said. "I am confident that the courts will look favorably on the city's position, notwithstanding the state's attempt to override our local laws."

Yeah, it truly sucks when Mobocracy actually works against you for once.

foghornl

May 8, 2003, 11:39 AM

Denver might well be a so-called "Home Rule' City, but I'd be willing to bet a flagon of Mead or 2 that the City of Denver still takes Fed & State funds...

Lieing Socialist Scumbags:cuss: :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:

Desertdog

May 8, 2003, 11:57 AM

It will now be up to the Denver residents to learn if the crime rate goes down and to TRY to get the word out.
We know from past experience that anti-gunners and the media will yell from the roof tops if crime rates go up, but not a whisper if it goes down.:fire:

TallPine

May 8, 2003, 12:48 PM

What is a "home rule city?" Seriously.

It means that the U.S. Constitution is not recoginized inside the Denver city/county limits. Seriously (ask Rick Stanley).

scottgun

May 8, 2003, 03:56 PM

City of Denver still takes Fed & State funds...

getting or taking isn't the problem, giving or allowing seems to be the problem. They will take your tax money, but won't allow you the Rights guaranteed by the US Constitution.

Absolutely unbelievable that the City of Denver still thinks it can make its own rules even after people elect their represenatives and they pass laws on behalf of the people. This in on the State level, in order to eliminated inconsistencies with local ordinances, and they still won't recognize it. Wellington Webb is as crooked as they get. Disgusting.

El Tejon

May 8, 2003, 04:08 PM

HIP, HIP, HOORAY! Way to go, Red!:cool:

Waitone

May 9, 2003, 10:02 AM

Shoes do at time pinch, don't they?

scottgun

May 9, 2003, 01:33 PM

ElTejon and waitone, what are you talking about? How does that relate to this topic?

El Tejon

May 9, 2003, 01:38 PM

Scott, because Denver is now put in a box that it does not, cannot afford to be in. I'm loving every minute of watching them squirm.:cool:

scottgun

May 9, 2003, 01:58 PM

I see, said the blind man.
Anyways to contact Mayor Webb via e-mail, his address is :
mayorden@ci.denver.co.us

Here's a copy of a message I sent, I realize it will do little if any good, other than voicing my point of view:

Dear Mayor Webb,

I find it appalling that the City of Denver refuses to recognize SB 25 passed by the State Legislature. The people of Colorado have made their intentions clear by electing Republicans who support our Second Amendment rights. This is on a State level. Your actions undermine the democratic process and the Freedom of this country.

I would seriously urge you recognize SB 25 as it has been passed by the Colorado State Legislature.

Thank you.
A Concerned Citizen

Standing Wolf

May 10, 2003, 12:37 AM

Denver is to Colorado as cockroaches are to kitchens.

Doc

May 10, 2003, 06:45 PM

Standing Wolf: you posted another one!

So i guess Denver will be forced to cecede
from the left coast :neener:

Kinda reminescent of West Berlin...:what:
at least from the liberal denverite perspective.

Just think maybe next time I go to Colorado skiing i will be able to carry :evil:

Doc

May 10, 2003, 06:48 PM

i mean 'secede'

never could spell

Erik

May 11, 2003, 01:51 PM

"What is a "home rule city?" Seriously."

The framers of the State Contstitution wrote the City and County of Denver into the Constitution as a "home rule" entity.

So as preposterous as Denver's stance sounds, it is a legal one.

Caveat: The matter has apparently never been played out in court. (?) Maybe that will finally change.

general

May 17, 2003, 03:47 PM

Cities gear up for gun applicants - Rocky Mountain News (http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_1968317,00.html)
By John J. Sanko And Sarah Huntley, Rocky Mountain News
May 17, 2003
This is a long story with links to other important stuff - so I wont post the whole story.
Also - here are the links:
Denver readies for gun law fight (http://www.insidedenver.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_1968378,00.html)
Please check it out - what these rats are up to.

Frankly, we will be scr*wed until, and unless, there is a much greater number of pro-gun candidates elected to office.

Diesle

May 17, 2003, 04:40 PM

Its fun to watch em sqirm!

Diesle

Don Gwinn

May 17, 2003, 08:16 PM

Well, quasi-legal, at any rate. I never quite understood how Denver became exempt from the Federal Constitution, even if it was exempted by the state Constitution (at the time of the Stanley trial, I read the CO Constitution and didn't find any home-rule provision for Denver, but obviously I missed it.)

Jim March

May 17, 2003, 08:57 PM

No, the city's stance is flat-out wrong.

'Kay, here's the sitrep:

Colorado's constitution of 1876 very clearly set up an individual right to arms, including an absolute right to open-carry a handgun, BUT limits could be placed on concealed carry.

The "home rule process" was set up later, early 20th century I think, and while it gave such towns a lot more control, it contained a clause saying that citizens of such cities CANNOT be stripped of any pre-existing rights under the state (or Fed) constitutions by "home rules".

Hence all of the Denver-specific rules that violate the RKBA are illegal. Every - single - one - of them.

I did all the research on this when Rick Stanley's thing first blew up. Since then, the Colorado Supreme Court has mentioned in another case that when Rick Stanley's challenge to the "home rule gun laws" comes up to them, he WILL win. I've seen a copy of that opinion, Rick brought it with him to Counterattack.

general

May 18, 2003, 01:47 AM

Jim -
You're talking about Stanley's carry thing at the Capitol right?
I was wondering what the status was on that. Heard somone at the monthly PPFC meeting talking about it, but never did get the info.
Thanks for the info.

Jim March

May 18, 2003, 02:08 AM

Obviously this full understanding of the "home rule" process affects Rick Stanley, and it's now guaranteed he'll never see jail for his open-carry protest in Denver.

Rick actually didn't do enough research before his protest and first trial; at his first trial, he should have quoted the portion of the "home rule amendment" in the state const. that bans "home rule" from restricting any personal right. See also:

The real details (incl. quotes from various CO constitutions) are in my post, page 2.

general

May 19, 2003, 05:01 AM

Jim -
Thanks. Glad you're around to help us clearly understand these things.
:)

TarpleyG

May 19, 2003, 12:25 PM

Webb fears the new gun laws will make carrying a concealed weapon in Denver, and elsewhere, the norm rather than exception to the rule.
Surely this moron is joking, right? Would this be like the norm that has occured everywhere else that they have shall-issue or are people in Colorado not like the rest of the country? Come on. I'd bet that no more than 5% of the licensed carriers carry daily anywhere in the country. Most folks find it too cumbersome and inconvenient. It's not easy to tote a gun around with you all the time AND keep it hidden.